OCZ Octane SSD Pricing Released: From $200 to $880

Status
Not open for further replies.

Au_equus

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2011
812
0
19,060
45
[citation][nom]mariusmotea[/nom]My OCZ Vertez 2 is 70% slower than the OCZ specifications, i doubt that those values ​​are real.[/citation]
it's called progress. get used to it.
 

drwho1

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2010
1,272
0
19,310
15
SSD prices still have a long way to go DOWN until they can actually attempt to compete with hard drives.

Until manufactures realize the huge market that they could earn by simply lowering their ridiculous prices, then and only then there will be at least one SSD on every computer in the world.

That should be their goal.
 

LuckyDucky7

Distinguished
May 5, 2010
303
0
18,780
0
This is still too expensive. I mean- a Corsair Force 3, or better yet, a Kingston HyperX, can be had for around the same price point.

So who's going to buy a slower SSD for that cash?
 

physical

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
7
0
18,510
0
SSD Manufacturers aren't pricing their products so high because they want to squeeze every dime they possibly can from the consumer. They are priced like this because the tech is expensive.

Flash Memory chips are expensive. For the chips alone, it still costs over a dollar per gig. Add to that the price of the controller, and assembly, packaging, and marketing and you'll see that the markup on these products is well within accepted norms.

Like most chip production, it gets cheaper by volume. Improved manufacturing tech improves yields, and reduces raw material costs. We are still waiting for this tech to be mature enough to offer low cost, high volume production.

(edit... quick edit mangled my quote)
 

robisinho

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2010
68
0
18,630
0
its funny because they were initially targeting $1/gb .. I guess they couldnt resist the profit when they saw no one was going to come down in prices to force that level of cost
 

husker

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2009
1,080
108
19,470
1
I bought a 128GB SSD (Kingston) a couple of years ago for less than $200. Granted it is not as fast as the current crop, but this goes to show that price/GB isn't budging at all.
 

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
2,123
1
20,460
212
[citation][nom]husker[/nom]I bought a 128GB SSD (Kingston) a couple of years ago for less than $200. Granted it is not as fast as the current crop, but this goes to show that price/GB isn't budging at all.[/citation]

That's because the speed keeps getting higher. The SSD makers have figured out that we have enough storage at those points for the needs of those who can afford them. At least enough storage for the OS and some programs. Data storage can, and usually is, kept on a separate hard drive. So, they keep making the drives faster so people keep upgrading. It's not hard to figure out.

I, for one, love my old Vertex (original) in my server. It boots Server 2008 R2 in less than a minute. My main system uses 2 Vertex 2's, and they're fine. Any more speed increase for either wouldn't even be noticeable unless I was sitting in front of it waiting to boot, which is not normal. I don't really have a need to increase my drive speed, processor (Core i7 920 @4.2) speed, memory (12GB DDR3-1600) size or speed, or graphics (dual SLi GTX470) capabilities for the near future.

Maybe I'm getting old, but it sure seems like hardware is outpacing software these days. I actually can't justify spending the money on any upgrades right now.
 

jwl3

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2008
341
0
18,780
0
Why is this priced about the same as an OCZ Vertex 3 while delivering a fraction of the performance? Granted V3 has been problematic.
 

pocketdrummer

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
1,077
20
19,285
0
Still >$1/1Gb?

Pass...

I don't even care about speed. This absurd pricing for the amount of storage you DON'T get. $879.99 for the only model I would consider useful. That's more than I paid to upgrade my entire rig to a 1366 i7 platform.
 

pocketdrummer

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
1,077
20
19,285
0
[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]That's because the speed keeps getting higher. The SSD makers have figured out that we have enough storage at those points for the needs of those who can afford them. At least enough storage for the OS and some programs. Data storage can, and usually is, kept on a separate hard drive. So, they keep making the drives faster so people keep upgrading. It's not hard to figure out. I, for one, love my old Vertex (original) in my server. It boots Server 2008 R2 in less than a minute. My main system uses 2 Vertex 2's, and they're fine. Any more speed increase for either wouldn't even be noticeable unless I was sitting in front of it waiting to boot, which is not normal. I don't really have a need to increase my drive speed, processor (Core i7 920 @4.2) speed, memory (12GB DDR3-1600) size or speed, or graphics (dual SLi GTX470) capabilities for the near future. Maybe I'm getting old, but it sure seems like hardware is outpacing software these days. I actually can't justify spending the money on any upgrades right now.[/citation]

Windows + my programs won't fit on a 128Gb SSD. That's not counting any extra files just sitting on C:. Thus, at the very least, I would have to spring for the 256 GB at $369.99. That's still $1.45/1Gb...
 

fulle

Distinguished
May 31, 2008
968
0
19,010
14
[citation][nom]mariusmotea[/nom]My OCZ Vertez 2 is 70% slower than the OCZ specifications, i doubt that those values ​​are real.[/citation]

Are you sure it's the drive's fault, or your SATA controller.

For example, if I dropped a OCZ Vertex 2 into an old LGA775 motherboard, and it's read speeds maxed at 120MB/s. Put the same drive into a Z68 motherboard, connected to the "6GB/s SATAIII", and it ran at 330MB/s. I took the same drive, and put and hooked it up to a PCIe RAID controller that actually gives it proper bandwidth, and it runs at it's rated speeds (well over 400MB/s).
 

fulle

Distinguished
May 31, 2008
968
0
19,010
14
Meh. no edit. The drive was actually a Vertex 3, and when I said over 400MB/s, I meant over 500MB/s. A Vertex 2 would max out at 284MB/s, but the point remains that if it was put into a regular SATA connection, that's be a max bandwidth of like 150MB/s, and the drive would end up running at like 120MB/s, despite being able to run much faster than that.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ummmm Kingston HyperX 128gb SSD on my gigabyte z68 gets over 500MB/s on reads AND writes! You dont need a PCIe Raid controller for those speeds, just proper hardware...
 

resetrsx

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
24
1
18,510
0
[citation][nom]foleycandice[/nom]my buddy's ex-wife makes $75 hourly on the internet. She has been laid off for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $8902 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read about it here http://how-to-spam-an-article[/citation]

Tell your buddy's ex-wife thanks. I'm quitting my job tomorrow.
 

fulle

Distinguished
May 31, 2008
968
0
19,010
14
[citation][nom]kalifornian[/nom]Ummmm Kingston HyperX 128gb SSD on my gigabyte z68 gets over 500MB/s on reads AND writes! You dont need a PCIe Raid controller for those speeds, just proper hardware...[/citation]

Wow, it was hard to find a relevant benchmark link, since review sites will idiotically run slower SSDs that don't show a performance difference.... but, this pretty much illustrates what I was talking about:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/motherboards/2011/09/09/asrock-z68-extreme4-gen3-review/5

Notice how in the above, that only 1 motherboard's SATA 6GB/s actually ran at the speed it was supposed to, the Asus Sabertooth P67... the norm, was for motherboard SATA performance to bottleneck the SSD to between 330MB/s to 360MB/s.

It's bullshit, to be quite honest. Motherboard SATA performance shouldn't be all over the place like this, but it is.
 

Uberragen21

Distinguished
Sep 3, 2009
285
1
18,810
11
[citation][nom]mariusmotea[/nom]My OCZ Vertez 2 is 70% slower than the OCZ specifications, i doubt that those values ​​are real.[/citation]
Those are the theoretical throughput, which the observed throughput is typically less. An example is USB 2.0 which has a maximum bandwidth of 480 Mbit/s (60 MB/s). However, typically users rarely see more than 25-35 MB/s throughput. No different here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY